Advertisments on iTunes to Discount Prices?

[rendezvouscp]

Podcasts I'm not so sure; think of all the independents who create podcasts. I sure wouldn't want a commercial for Meow Mix stuck somewhere within my podcast.

Podcasts are the least likely to change. Apple doesn't serve any podcast content. Although the iTunes application performs the download, the file comes straight from the original source's server, not from Apple.

I would presume that if this had something to do with podcasts that Apple would offer a service to add advertisements for a kickback; there are ad networks for podcasts currently, but I honestly don't think it's something Apple would get into.
-Chasen

 

[k2k koos]

Ow by the way, to all screaming NO that you don't want to have the choice:
when did you give MacRumors your $50 (figure of speech) to cancel your ads?... because if you hate commercials you would pay that too right?

The world runs on commercials, so let apple start with iAdunes (as long as the old model stays in place of course).

to be honest, no I don't want to pay to be an user of this site, but I'd rather have no adds on the site at all, it makes sites look unorganized, messy, distracting etc , although I understand that adds may fund the up keep of the site, so I'll deal with it, and there is not yet loads of adds here (and I hope that stays that way).
In the case of iTunes store though, no need ad all for adds, it is a revenue making store already, no need for distractions and other garbage.

 

[matticus008]

Not everything. In the technology sector, prices generally go down over time.

We're not talking about the technology sector. We're talking about the media/entertainment sector, where prices do not drop. It's also specious to correlate technology (where initial costs for new products are high but fade rapidly) with lowering prices when in fact mature technology stabilizes and adjusts with inflation.

iTunes purchases are already overpriced - the per-song price is higher than the price for buying tracks on CD (unless you're dumb enough to pay MSRP for your CDs.)

I would have to disagree. Given an average 12-13 track album with an MSRP of $18 and usually myself paying $12.99 for that album, I'd say that the pricing is basically equal in most cases. The quality is certainly less, and having to pay $1.29 to remedy that does make the pricing unequal. But the price is more for the convenience and a la carte nature of it. Instant gratification and hand-selecting usually carry some sort of price premium.

I think you're missing the point here-- Apple will have changed their business model to where they are looking at ads as a revenue source.

I can assure you that they already look at advertising as a revenue source. They collect money from all sorts of companies for product placement on their site, prominent placement on the iTunes Store home screen, store displays and the like. If your intent is to say that this is a line Apple hasn't crossed, that's simply not the case.

If you think one of the hottest properties on the web is going to want for advertisers, you don't understand how this works.

I didn't say that. I said advertising as an industry is self-correcting. If a location becomes nothing more than a billboard, the costs and revenues collapse. Apple has the incentive to continue to control the flow by making ads a limited sandbox. They've managed to balance advertising well enough as it is, since you've apparently not noticed it all over the place.

Once they start in with advertising their motivations change and subsequently my user experience is destined to change.

That would be true if Apple didn't do any sort of advertising now, but it isn't, so it's not.

iTMS sales drop?

What sales drop? Discounted prices would only add to sales. There is no conceivable impact. That's like refusing to buy from iTunes if they sell rap music. If you don't want it, don't buy it and continue as is. Anything else is unfounded FUD.

Their customers were under the impression they were paying for the show to get it ad free and Apple enforced that.

And there's the rub! If they specifically choose to select an ad-supported product, that expectation does not exist.

Now some of their stations are also selling time on big flat panel displays above the pumps to harass me while I'm stuck waiting to fill up.

Big flat screens that also offer useful services and pertinent advertising. If you expect some sort of serene retreat while surrounded by cars, street noise, and gas fumes, you've got another thing coming. Some of those ads show sales on soda, bargains on snacks, and some even let you order right from the pump so you only pay once. It's extremely useful for travelers. It's also not much different from when they used to interrupt the muzak with commercials. You managed to tune those out.

Content providers can't do whatever they want with their files. Apple controls the channel. Apple sees no revenue from the ads so they have no motivation to allow them

Not true. Many of the free videos and podcasts contain ads--that's how the content providers make their money when providing at a deeply discounted price. It's already there. Apple is just looking to take the ads out of the files, which IMPROVES the user's viewing experience. It's not for charity, though--Apple gets a cut of that money. But it works in everyone's favor.

I get the "temptation" and "ad creep" arguments you're making. I just don't see any historical reason to believe it. They started advertising in their stores at least four years ago. It's still tastefully done and highly contained. All they have to do is do that again. This is all just an idea they're toying with, anyway. They'd be insane NOT to look at it seriously, regardless of whether or not they choose to do it.

 

[Analog Kid]

There is no conceivable impact.
Some of those ads show sales on soda, bargains on snacks, and some even let you order right from the pump so you only pay once.
Apple is just looking to take the ads out of the files...
it works in everyone's favor.
They started advertising in their stores at least four years ago.

I get the feeling you and I have very different views on advertising in general and I think we're imagining very different things when it comes to advertising on iTMS...

 

[A Pittarelli]

tis an inevitable shame, i was actually kindof surprised this didnt happen earlier.

 

[shamino]

I would have to disagree. Given an average 12-13 track album with an MSRP of $18 and usually myself paying $12.99 for that album, I'd say that the pricing is basically equal in most cases.

Then you're getting ripped off. I typically pay $6-7 per CD. BMG Music is one great source. There are many others, especially if you perform on-line searches to find the best price instead of impulse-buying what you see on a store's shelves.

 

[winterdude010]

I don't think people would buy discounted movies or tv shows if it had ads in it. The whole point of downloading those things (at least TV shows) is to have them be ad-free. Apple could lose sales if they implemented advertising into the downloads. And they would be quite ugly in the iTMS

 

[matticus008]

Then you're getting ripped off. I typically pay $6-7 per CD. BMG Music is one great source. There are many others, especially if you perform on-line searches to find the best price instead of impulse-buying what you see on a store's shelves.

You can't directly compare wholesale distributors with retail sellers. I'm going with numbers from retailers: Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy. You're not getting "ripped off" by paying below MSRP at a retail outlet, nor does it mean you're impulse buying anything.

Clearinghouses are a great way to save money, but they do not reflect actual market pricing--in fact, their entire purpose is below-market pricing. There is no conceivable logic that would lead to an expectation for iTunes to compete with below-market sellers. Next you'll be saying that $4 used CDs mean that BMG is overpriced.

If someone asks you, "what does a pair of jeans cost here?" it would be misleading to tell them $55 without qualifying that as at the outlets, as you have done with CD pricing. When they went to the retailer and saw the $75 price tag, they'd think you a liar or a fool.

 

[shamino]

You can't directly compare wholesale distributors with retail sellers. I'm going with numbers from retailers: Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy. You're not getting "ripped off" by paying below MSRP at a retail outlet, nor does it mean you're impulse buying anything.

You're changing the subject.

I said that iTunes is overpriced because it is trivially easy to get music for a much lower price.

You point out that most retail stores don't charge that little. Big deal. The fact that most retail stores rip off their customers doesn't mean I have to shut up and enjoy Apple's high prices or think well of the record labels that want them to go even higher.

BMG may be a clearinghouse, but they're still not selling at a loss. Those prices come directly from the fact that you are buying directly from the distributor, eliminating the 100% markup that retailers apply to every CD sold. The only thing different between a BMG sale and a retail sale is that a retail sale includes a 50% profit margin for the retailer.

The fact that the "industry standard" is to rip off customers doesn't mean it's anything close to a fair price.

If someone asks you, "what does a pair of jeans cost here?" it would be misleading to tell them $55 without qualifying that as at the outlets, as you have done with CD pricing. When they went to the retailer and saw the $75 price tag, they'd think you a liar or a fool.

If you asked that question, I'd quote you a price much less than that. And I would have no problem telling them to go buy from Wal*Mart or Target in order to get that price.

You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with shopping around to get the best price. If you want to go around paying double what stuff is worth because you choose to only buy from expensive stores, that's your problem. It doesn't magically make the merchandise more valuable.

 

[matticus008]

I said that iTunes is overpriced because it is trivially easy to get music for a much lower price.

A product cannot be overpriced when compared to something outside of its market segment. A Corvette is not an overpriced Miata. Buying a CD is not the same as buying a track on iTunes, and buying a CD at a retail establishment is not the same as buying a CD at a below-market clearinghouse or a used CD store.

The subject has always been the same. You're declaring a product overpriced by comparing it against a product against which it was never designed to compete. It doesn't hold water. iTunes is a retailer. It competes against retailers--Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, Tower. It also provides value-added services like a la carte availability and instant gratification, like other online services.

The fact that you have some other, cheaper path to the goods is irrelevant to the economics of the situation. Congratulations on finding the lower-cost option. That doesn't mean that market-price goods are overpriced. In fact, it's contrary to the definition. It means that you're buying underpriced goods.

If you asked that question, I'd quote you a price much less than that. And I would have no problem telling them to go buy from Wal*Mart or Target in order to get that price.

Again, you wouldn't be answering their question. They didn't ask where to go to get the cheapest possible price on somewhat similar goods. They wanted to know what that pair of jeans costs at that retailer. And you're still trying to wedge them into your value set and giving them faulty information.

You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with shopping around to get the best price.

No, I don't. There is something inherently wrong with faulty comparisons, though. You can't compare directly a pair of Walmart jeans with a pair of Express jeans, you can't compare a Hyundai with an Audi, you can't compare the $299 Dell special with a Mac Pro. They serve different markets, and it is false, misleading, and overly simplistic to claim that the products serve the same purposes.

Using a below-market source as a baseline boggles the mind. They may be effectively equivalent for you, but that doesn't make them categorically so. I cannot abide categorical condemnation based on some arbitrary subset of relevant factors.